edit: oh f*ck, i remember, you are the guy who invested in litecoin... so why you believed in their devs?

So why litecoin but not cryptcoin? and why bitcoin? why you invest in bitcoin, you know Satoshi Nakamoto? of course no.

Personally i know more things about MindFox than Satoshi nakamoto... like you, so now i think that you can stop here otherwise you can stop to invest in bitcoin too.

Good questions.

Yes, I invested in litecoin and bitcoin. In Litecoin mostly because it was the first alt and because of "gut" feeling (honestly, I liked this guy koolio).

Let me explain this MindFox/Satoshi Nakamoto thing. I don't trust satoshi nakamoto and I don't think that anyone should. In my opinion Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't exists and the bitcoin thing might as well be FBI/NSA conspiracy.

But Bitcoin is not completely new technology and a lot of money was invested in it. Probably lots of people tried to find vulnerabilities in bitcoin, but they couldn't (or they could find them but they were very quickly fixed - transaction malleability for example). So the probability that someone will find any significant problem in bitcoin is getting smaller and smaller. That doesn't mean that such problems don't exist.

The anonymity features are new. Nobody has really reviewed them. There are almost no documented attacks on them. But most of them do contain implementation bugs or are plainly stupid ideas, sorry. So you can't and shouldn't trust any feature. Because in 99% of cases you won't get any additional privacy. In fact you may even lose some because of poor implementation.

So I think that the development of any anonymity or security feature must be done in transparent and open way. Otherwise you really can't trust any of the solutions.

How do we know that mindfox is not NSA or FBI employee and that he won't plant backdoor in his solution? But he doesn't have to be NSA or FBI employee to plant backdoor. Most backdoors in security software are not intentional and are simply consequences of incompetence and/or stupidity (sorry for expression) of software engineers or are consequences of new types of attacks (for example, timing attacks in cryptography).

The only way that you can have any anonymity feature that you can (sort of) trust is to have the whole process completely transparent from the beginning. This includes the "whitepaper" phase where the whitepaper should be reviewed at least by technically inclined members community (ideally they would be reviewed by costly professionals/experts).

I don't understand how the CryptCoin community couldn't find such obvious holes in whitepaper and it had to be reminded about them by some anonymous fudster on Reddit.

I have nothing against MindFox. I don't know the guy and I don't know if he is capable of delivering anything that would allow true anonymity. But in 99,9% of cases some anonymous guy that is doing something in secrecy for one or two months can't deliver a software that provides any kind of true anonymity. His idea will in 99% have some big holes in it and actual implementation will in 80% of cases contain additional vulnerabilities.

This will pose additional risk for investors because they can be victims of any random fudster on Reddit at any time. It really doesn't matter if the arguments of this fudster are valid or not. As long as they look reasonable they will have effect on the price. If the arguments hold water even after they are reviewed by more technically inclined members of community, the price will drop much more.

So the CryptCoin community has still the chance to change it's development methodology to a more open and transparent. This will also lower the risk for investors and probably attract some fresh money, including my money.

The anonymity features are new. Nobody has really reviewed them. There are almost no documented attacks on them. But most of them do contain implementation bugs or are plainly stupid ideas, sorry. So you can't and shouldn't trust any feature. Because in 99% of cases you won't get any additional privacy. In fact you may even lose some because of poor implementation.

So I think that the development of any anonymity or security feature must be done in transparent and open way. Otherwise you really can't trust any of the solutions.

I couldn't agree more with you on this. If you checked my posts, I stated that I'm against using new untested methods for production use. Thank you for this

How do we know that mindfox is not NSA or FBI employee and that he won't plant backdoor in his solution? But he doesn't have to be NSA or FBI employee to plant backdoor. Most backdoors in security software are not intentional and are simply consequences of incompetence and/or stupidity (sorry for expression) of software engineers or are consequences of new types of attacks (for example, timing attacks in cryptography).

The only way that you can have any anonymity feature that you can (sort of) trust is to have the whole process completely transparent from the beginning. This includes the "whitepaper" phase where the whitepaper should be reviewed at least by technically inclined members community (ideally they would be reviewed by costly professionals/experts).

Believe me, this is how I usually go. Many users know that I do not hide info and I'm very talkative in general. Please look at this from my side: Have you seen anyone in here that has the technical skills and is willing to offer any productive criticism? Or one that isn't posting only to serve his own purpose?

This will pose additional risk for investors because they can be victims of any random fudster on Reddit at any time. It really doesn't matter if the arguments of this fudster are valid or not. As long as they look reasonable they will have effect on the price. If the arguments hold water even after they are reviewed by more technically inclined members of community, the price will drop much more.

So the CryptCoin community has still the chance to change it's development methodology to a more open and transparent. This will also lower the risk for investors and probably attract some fresh money, including my money.

The task I was assigned is not to attract more money in the coin but to deliver a certain functionality.People say that I play with words or semantics. But sometimes the difference between words can be huge.

Just to sum up: I do not answer to anonymous posts because I'm not obligated to. Anyone can come forward and discuss with me with his real username just I am using my real username.Or do you think that I couldn't change my username since it looks like it's common practice and appear like I'm an alien intelligence came to spread knowledge to poor humans?I'm not that type though and I will never be. I'm here and I will do what I'm supposed to do.

Will it have flaws? I expect it to. That's why we will keep implementing till it meets certain QA requirements.

Did I ever claimed my solution will be resistant to any kind of attack present or future?Of course not, on the contrary. Just read my previous posts. Anyone who claims that is a fool, the least.

Why did I chose whatever method I chose?Because they are tested methods that do not deviate from the primary protocol (bitcoin).I stated many times that I would never trust my coins going to an intermediate node for further processing. That's why there are no nodes that will get any coins from transactions. Plain and simple.I strongly believe that these methods are very hard to trace. Besides, there are even more ideas as next milestones.

Why don't I announce them?Because I do not want to be accused of trying to manipulate prices (which is something I do not want to have anything to do with). I will announce next milestones as soon as we have a successful test.

And as a ps:1) If I say more info about current and future plans, I will be accused of being manipulative (and scammer)2) If I don't say anything to avoid no1, I'm accused of being "shady" and even non-existant.

There is no way one can avoid rumors, good or bad. The best thing one can do, is let them say what they have to say. The best response (imho) is by presenting work when it is done, than posting in threads that tend to be manipulative (no matter if it's positive or negative).

The anonymity features are new. Nobody has really reviewed them. There are almost no documented attacks on them. But most of them do contain implementation bugs or are plainly stupid ideas, sorry. So you can't and shouldn't trust any feature. Because in 99% of cases you won't get any additional privacy. In fact you may even lose some because of poor implementation.

So I think that the development of any anonymity or security feature must be done in transparent and open way. Otherwise you really can't trust any of the solutions.

I couldn't agree more with you on this. If you checked my posts, I stated that I'm against using new untested methods for production use. Thank you for this

How do we know that mindfox is not NSA or FBI employee and that he won't plant backdoor in his solution? But he doesn't have to be NSA or FBI employee to plant backdoor. Most backdoors in security software are not intentional and are simply consequences of incompetence and/or stupidity (sorry for expression) of software engineers or are consequences of new types of attacks (for example, timing attacks in cryptography).

The only way that you can have any anonymity feature that you can (sort of) trust is to have the whole process completely transparent from the beginning. This includes the "whitepaper" phase where the whitepaper should be reviewed at least by technically inclined members community (ideally they would be reviewed by costly professionals/experts).

Believe me, this is how I usually go. Many users know that I do not hide info and I'm very talkative in general. Please look at this from my side: Have you seen anyone in here that has the technical skills and is willing to offer any productive criticism? Or one that isn't posting only to serve his own purpose?

This will pose additional risk for investors because they can be victims of any random fudster on Reddit at any time. It really doesn't matter if the arguments of this fudster are valid or not. As long as they look reasonable they will have effect on the price. If the arguments hold water even after they are reviewed by more technically inclined members of community, the price will drop much more.

So the CryptCoin community has still the chance to change it's development methodology to a more open and transparent. This will also lower the risk for investors and probably attract some fresh money, including my money.

The task I was assigned is not to attract more money in the coin but to deliver a certain functionality.People say that I play with words or semantics. But sometimes the difference between words can be huge.

Just to sum up: I do not answer to anonymous posts because I'm not obligated to. Anyone can come forward and discuss with me with his real username just I am using my real username.Or do you think that I couldn't change my username since it looks like it's common practice and appear like I'm an alien intelligence came to spread knowledge to poor humans?I'm not that type though and I will never be. I'm here and I will do what I'm supposed to do.

Will it have flaws? I expect it to. That's why we will keep implementing till it meets certain QA requirements.

Did I ever claimed my solution will be resistant to any kind of attack present or future?Of course not, on the contrary. Just read my previous posts. Anyone who claims that is a fool, the least.

Why did I chose whatever method I chose?Because they are tested methods that do not deviate from the primary protocol (bitcoin).I stated many times that I would never trust my coins going to an intermediate node for further processing. That's why there are no nodes that will get any coins from transactions. Plain and simple.I strongly believe that these methods are very hard to trace. Besides, there are even more ideas as next milestones.

Why don't I announce them?Because I do not want to be accused of trying to manipulate prices (which is something I do not want to have anything to do with). I will announce next milestones as soon as we have a successful test.

And as a ps:1) If I say more info about current and future plans, I will be accused of being manipulative (and scammer)2) If I don't say anything to avoid no1, I'm accused of being "shady" and even non-existant.

There is no way one can avoid rumors, good or bad. The best thing one can do, is let them say what they have to say. The best response (imho) is by presenting work when it is done, than posting in threads that tend to be manipulative (no matter if it's positive or negative).

Exactly as stated. The work will speak for itself when ITS DONE. Not while its in the early stages of development. THere is no need to appease every whacko that is not even an investor. This is why nothing gets done in corporate atmosphere. Everyone always wants a update on how your fart sounded after every bite of food youve eaten. Let the work be done and then critique. Until the STFU to all the fudders.

In response to a query regarding payouts for CryptCoin on our pool, we are responding on this thread also with the information. A user alleged that we had not paid them the coins that they were entitled

We are doing this because we take any such accusations very seriously, and respond to them appropriately.

Code:

Hi,

In total (as of 20-06-14 at 8:47PM BST) our Pool has found a total of 2 CRY Blocks: http://new.hashharder.com/rounds?coin=cry

These are the only two blocks our pool has found. Totally 188 CRYPT. The payouts are all listed below.

For transparency and clarity, i will post the above information also into the CRYPTCOIN thread.

Quote from: Miner's Name Removed

Actually nevermind I am showing a payment of .68 cryptcoin, which in no way covers all of the shares I had mined. I dont want to show what was exploited and label the pool a scam. I would like to be payed my coins.

The anonymity features are new. Nobody has really reviewed them. There are almost no documented attacks on them. But most of them do contain implementation bugs or are plainly stupid ideas, sorry. So you can't and shouldn't trust any feature. Because in 99% of cases you won't get any additional privacy. In fact you may even lose some because of poor implementation.

So I think that the development of any anonymity or security feature must be done in transparent and open way. Otherwise you really can't trust any of the solutions.

I couldn't agree more with you on this. If you checked my posts, I stated that I'm against using new untested methods for production use. Thank you for this

How do we know that mindfox is not NSA or FBI employee and that he won't plant backdoor in his solution? But he doesn't have to be NSA or FBI employee to plant backdoor. Most backdoors in security software are not intentional and are simply consequences of incompetence and/or stupidity (sorry for expression) of software engineers or are consequences of new types of attacks (for example, timing attacks in cryptography).

The only way that you can have any anonymity feature that you can (sort of) trust is to have the whole process completely transparent from the beginning. This includes the "whitepaper" phase where the whitepaper should be reviewed at least by technically inclined members community (ideally they would be reviewed by costly professionals/experts).

Believe me, this is how I usually go. Many users know that I do not hide info and I'm very talkative in general. Please look at this from my side: Have you seen anyone in here that has the technical skills and is willing to offer any productive criticism? Or one that isn't posting only to serve his own purpose?

This will pose additional risk for investors because they can be victims of any random fudster on Reddit at any time. It really doesn't matter if the arguments of this fudster are valid or not. As long as they look reasonable they will have effect on the price. If the arguments hold water even after they are reviewed by more technically inclined members of community, the price will drop much more.

So the CryptCoin community has still the chance to change it's development methodology to a more open and transparent. This will also lower the risk for investors and probably attract some fresh money, including my money.

The task I was assigned is not to attract more money in the coin but to deliver a certain functionality.People say that I play with words or semantics. But sometimes the difference between words can be huge.

Just to sum up: I do not answer to anonymous posts because I'm not obligated to. Anyone can come forward and discuss with me with his real username just I am using my real username.Or do you think that I couldn't change my username since it looks like it's common practice and appear like I'm an alien intelligence came to spread knowledge to poor humans?I'm not that type though and I will never be. I'm here and I will do what I'm supposed to do.

Will it have flaws? I expect it to. That's why we will keep implementing till it meets certain QA requirements.

Did I ever claimed my solution will be resistant to any kind of attack present or future?Of course not, on the contrary. Just read my previous posts. Anyone who claims that is a fool, the least.

Why did I chose whatever method I chose?Because they are tested methods that do not deviate from the primary protocol (bitcoin).I stated many times that I would never trust my coins going to an intermediate node for further processing. That's why there are no nodes that will get any coins from transactions. Plain and simple.I strongly believe that these methods are very hard to trace. Besides, there are even more ideas as next milestones.

Why don't I announce them?Because I do not want to be accused of trying to manipulate prices (which is something I do not want to have anything to do with). I will announce next milestones as soon as we have a successful test.

And as a ps:1) If I say more info about current and future plans, I will be accused of being manipulative (and scammer)2) If I don't say anything to avoid no1, I'm accused of being "shady" and even non-existant.

There is no way one can avoid rumors, good or bad. The best thing one can do, is let them say what they have to say. The best response (imho) is by presenting work when it is done, than posting in threads that tend to be manipulative (no matter if it's positive or negative).

Exactly as stated. The work will speak for itself when ITS DONE. Not while its in the early stages of development. THere is no need to appease every whacko that is not even an investor. This is why nothing gets done in corporate atmosphere. Everyone always wants a update on how your fart sounded after every bite of food youve eaten. Let the work be done and then critique. Until the STFU to all the fudders.